Post on 29-May-2020
transcript
Evaluation of Summer 2010 Out-of-School Time
Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant
Funded By Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care To the United Way of Massachusetts Bay and
Merrimack Valley
Submitted February 4, 2011 Mary Lu Love Institute for Community Inclusion University of Massachusetts Boston
Table of Contents
Section 1 Summary. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Section 2 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Section 3 Description of the Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Section 4a BOSTnet Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Section 4b DELTA Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Section 4c WestMOST Evaluation. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Section 5 Learning Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Section 6 Cumulative data for all sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Section 7 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Section 8 Bibliography . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Attachment A Child Level data. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Attachment B Program Level data. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Attachment C Group Leader Survey. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Attachment D Coach Survey. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Attachment E Program Director Debriefing. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Attachment F HUB Directors Debriefing. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Attachment G BOSTnet coaching log. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Attachment H BOSTnet article in Lynn Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Attachment I BOSTnet article from United Way website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Attachment J DELTAS Literacy Self Assessment for Group Leaders . . . . . 53
Attachment K DELTAS Field Trips/Special Guests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Attachment L DELTAS Activity Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Attachment M WestMOST Strategies & Thematic Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . .57
Attachment N WestMOST Summer Planning Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Attachment O WestMOST Ideas for Activity Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 2 of 61
Summer Literacy & Learning Evaluation
Section 1 – Summary
There is a common notion that summer is a carefree time for children, filled with
time to play outdoors, go to summer camp, and enjoy family trips. However, for many
children summer is a time when they lack access to adult supervision, healthy meals,
and great learning experiences. Parents consistently cite summer as the most
difficult time to ensure that their children have productive things to do (Duffett et al,
2004). More than half of the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income
youth can be explained by unequal access to summer learning opportunities
(Alexander et al, 2007).
Research indicates that struggling learners score significantly higher on standardized
tests taken at the beginning of summer vacation than they do on the same
standardized tests taken at summer‘s end. This loss is particularly evident in reading,
and it is most pronounced among students from low-socioeconomic families. These
losses are cumulative, creating a wider gap each year between more proficient and
less proficient students. By the time a struggling reader reaches middle school,
summer reading loss has accumulated to a two-year lag in reading achievement.
Studies suggest that students who read as few as six books over the summer
maintain the level of reading skills they achieved during the preceding school year.
Reading more books leads to even greater success (Gambrell, 2008). Early and
sustained summer learning opportunities lead to improved outcomes for youth, such
as increased academic achievement, self-esteem, confidence, motivation, and
higher graduation rates (National Center for Summer Learning, 2007).
Summer effect on student achievement is not a new area of research. In fact,
summer effect has been studied for nearly a century (Cooper et al, 1996). Over that
period of time, the studies have yielded two important findings: (a) that student
learning declines or remains stagnant during the summer months, and (b) that the
magnitude of change differs by socioeconomic status (Malach and Rutter, 2003).
Research psychologist Gerald Bracey reports that one study found that the ―volume
of summer reading was the best predictor of summer loss or gain.‖ Therefore,
reading is a practice that must be engaged in by all students on a daily basis during
the summer.
Analyses of recent studies refine what we know about summer effect. The 2010
summer issue of Reading Today, published by the International Reading
Association, focuses on several areas of study that continue to augment what we
know about stopping summer learning loss. In one article, Anne McGill Frazen of the
University of Tennessee describes a meta-analysis of 39 studies of the effects of
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 3 of 61
summer periods on reading achievement. This analysis revealed that middle-class
students gain several month‘s worth of achievement each summer, while low-SES
students lose an average of three or more months. When schools are in session,
these students gain at the same rate as middle-class students. According to McGill
Frazen‘s colleague, Richard Allington, summer learning loss may account for more
than two years‘ worth of achievement by the time these students reach middle
school.
Allington states that the evidence is clear that middle-class students read during the
summer while low-SES students do not. Access to books is one factor that impacts
the amount of reading students do during the summer. Having opportunities to self-
select books is another factor. Receiving guidance in selecting books at the
appropriate level--not too difficult, especially for struggling readers--is a third factor
that impacts the success of summer reading.
This report evaluates a project funded by the Massachusetts Department of Early
Education and Care (EEC) to stem summer reading loss by funding literacy
initiatives, through which urban youth participate in out-of-school-time programs.
Summer is a time when youth participate in a variety of recreational and social
activities. The partners in this grant—the regional United Way branches, DELTAS,
WESTmost, and BOSTnet—recognize the opportunity to continue school-year
learning during out-of-school-time programs. In order to achieve positive learning
outcomes for our youth, programs need resources. The funds provided by EEC were
used to support intentional literacy curricula in summer programs, build capacity of
program staff, provide coaches for programs, and enhance partnership between out-
of-school-time programs, schools, and families.
In one of the learning community meetings, the community hub leaders talked about
the need to support literacy for low-income youth in urban communities by ensuring
that all three essential elements work in collaboration: 1) out-of-school-time (OST)
sites focusing on intentional literacy, 2) coordinating literacy efforts with the public
schools in the community, and 3) supporting families to take an active role in literacy.
The grant supported the efforts in all three areas.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 4 of 61
Students who score in the top 10th percentile on standardized tests read more
than 20 minutes per day after school. Over a school year, that translates to 1.8
million words read! Students who read only five minutes for pleasure score
near the 50th percentile. Sadly, students who read a minute or less on a daily
basis after school hours read a mere 8,000 words per year and score in the
lowest 10 percent. It is easy to understand why engaging in some type of
instruction, whether it be structured or unstructured, is an integral part of
continued academic growth. (Shaywitz, 2003)
Through this project, the hub leaders have identified some key factors that contribute
to the success of summer literacy initiatives. These are: 1) the program quality, 2)
the commitment to program change by the program leadership, 3) staff preparation
and adaptation, and 4) the implementation of intentional literacy activities.
Section 2 – Background
Governor Deval Patrick‘s Readiness Cabinet endorsed a statewide action plan for
youth entitled Success for Life, including the goal that all children and youth in OST
programs in high-risk areas will successfully reach literacy benchmarks. In January
2010, the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care (EEC) made
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding available through an
open request for response (RFR). This RFR sought to fund a literacy initiative in the
state‘s turnaround school districts to improve the quality of out-of-school time (OST)
by offering literacy activities, partnering with public schools, and engaging families in
literacy supports.
Community
% of 3rd graders who scored below proficient on 2010
ELA - MCAS
Boston 63%
Holyoke 75%
Lawrence 60%
Lowell 60%
Lynn 56%
Springfield 61%
Worcester 56%
2010 MCAS data from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspx
EEC awarded the funding to the United Way of Mass Bay and Merrimack Valley
(UWMB), partnering with the United Way of Central Massachusetts in Worcester and
the United Way of the Pioneer Valley in Springfield, and three hubs with OST sites in
seven cities and 21 program sites (see Figure 1). Within the seven underperforming
MA school districts (Boston, Lynn, Lawrence, Lowell, Worcester, Springfield and
Holyoke) targeted by this grant, the number of 3rd graders not reading proficiently is
particularly high (up to 75%).
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 5 of 61
Figure 1: Location of OST Literacy Projects
Hub Communities Served Number of Program
Sites
Total Number of
Children Impacted
BOSTnet
Lawrence 2 158
Lowell 3 178
Lynn 3 618
DELTAS Boston 5 367
WestMOST
Worcester 4 345
Holyoke 1 26
Springfield 3 130
3 Hubs 7 Communities 21 OST Program Sites 1,822 Children
Each of the hubs worked to maintain communication between each of the local
school districts and the participating programs, and facilitated working partnerships
between the district and the programs. Hubs hired literacy coaches/specialists with
school district experience. The hub staff communicated and coached regularly with
program staff, created training calendars, and supported programs to track and
evaluate staff and student progress. The hubs met monthly in a learning community
with United Way staff and the evaluator to coordinate and share information, share
successes and challenges, and support best practices.
The funding supported initiatives to achieve four major objectives: 1) Prevent
summer learning loss: Maintain or increase students‘ reading skills. 2) Provide
focused literacy activities: Provide learning experience and opportunities to engage
in learning outside of the school day and year. 3) Build OST capacity: Increase
program capacity to provide students with learning experience and opportunities to
engage in learning. 4) Linkage with schools: Develop strong partnership between
out-of-school-time programs and their sending school districts, and increase parent
and family engagement.
Services provided with the funds included: literacy materials, specialized training,
coaching, technical assistance, and support to the hubs from the United Way. The
funds were also used for purchasing literacy materials for the programs, including
Kidzlit®, additional paperback books, fieldtrips, etc.
Each hub designed and provided specialized training for OST staff. Coaches
supported literacy within OST programs by: demonstrating instructional techniques;
coordinating literacy activities and materials; conducting assessments (DIBELS); and
providing the literacy training. Hubs hired coaches/literacy specialists and provided
technical assistance with managing the project through the hub coordinators, who
provided oversight to maintain a core vision, support problem-solving, and share
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 6 of 61
learning from individual sites. United Way supported hubs by: facilitating monthly
learning-community meetings where hub leaders shared successes, challenges, and
resources, and planned for sustainability; designing components of a website to
share documents; and sharing deliverables from sub-contractors funded by the
grant.
The hub coordinators are specialists in OST program quality, seeking to enhance
informal learning during out-of-school time. The hubs made their impact in summer
literacy by supporting the OST programs and staff, and providing coaches, best
practices, materials, and training to these programs.
OST programs were all located in urban communities, and reflected the diversity of
the communities where they provided services. Site directors managed the
enrollment and supervision of group leaders who provided social, emotional,
educational, and recreational activities directly to children ages 6 to 14. The
coaches, who were hired by the hubs, were mostly public-school teachers, along
with some graduate-level college students. Coaches interacted with the students,
modeling literacy activities, and also mentored the group leaders in implementing the
literacy activities. The OST group leaders provided the activities and supervised the
students; their qualifications varied, and they included young adults as well as
certified teachers.
Section 3 – Description of the Evaluation
Mary Lu Love and the data team at the Institute for Community Inclusion were hired
to evaluate the effectiveness of the OST Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant. The
evaluation focused on answering the following questions:
1. Do the students participating in this initiative retain or make progress in literacy skills?
2. What factors are linked to skill retention? 3. What is the impact for staff who participated? 4. Has the project supported the development of strong partnerships
between out-of-school-time programs and their sending school district(s)?
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 7 of 61
The following tools were used to collect data on the effectiveness of the program:
Figure 2: Evaluation Collection Tools
Child-Level Data: Assessments were collected by coaches. Program directors
shared the data with hub directors who submitted cleaned data, ready to process,
and containing no missing parts to the evaluator. No identifiable information was
shared regarding the identity of individual children. (See Attachment A: Child-Level
Data.)
Program-Level Data: Program directors completed Excel spread sheets. The data
collected is public information and is available to the public on websites and in parent
handbooks. (See Attachment B: Program-Level Data)
Group Leader Survey was completed online anonymously, for the majority of sites;
all DELTAS and some BOSTnet used the paper format. (See Attachment C: Group
Leader Survey)
Coach Survey: Coaches also completed an anonymous online survey. One hub,
DELTAS site, used a paper version. (See Attachment D: Coach Survey)
Debriefing Sessions: Debriefing sessions included hub and program directors. The
evaluator attended two hub-level debriefing sessions, one each for WestMOST and
BOSTnet, and received notes on the DELTAS debrief. The evaluator suggested
questions for the hub leaders to ask the program directors and coaches, with
additional questions used as a natural follow-up or to pursue a matter of particular
interest to the hub leader. In addition to the final debriefing session, the evaluator
attended the monthly learning-community meetings to follow the ongoing
Collection tools:
Stu
den
ts’
lite
racy
ou
tco
me
s
Stu
den
t
part
icip
ati
on
data
Sta
ff
ou
tco
me
s
Pa
rtn
ers
hip
wit
h p
ub
lic
sc
ho
ols
1. Child-Level Data (Excel Spread Sheet)
X X
2. Program-Level Data (Excel Spread Sheet)
X X
3. Group Leader Survey (Online)
X X X X
4. Group Leader Phone Interviews
X X X X
5. Coach Survey (Online) X X X
6. Debriefing Sessions: Hub and Program Directors
X X X X
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 8 of 61
developments. (See Attachment E: Program Director Debriefing and Attachment F:
Hub Directors Debriefing.)
Section 4a – BOSTnet Evaluation
BOSTnet, founded in 1987, has a mission to expand access to quality, affordable
out-of-school-time (OST) opportunities in Massachusetts that challenge and engage
children and youth though innovative research, leadership, and program design.
BOSTnet, as a hub in this grant, worked with two sites in Lawrence; three in Lowell;
and three in Lynn. BOSTnet provided all of these OST program sites with materials,
training, coaching, and support to implement the summer literacy initiative. Typically
these programs focused on social-emotional skills, sports, and recreational activities.
A total of 945 children received intentional literacy instruction through this grant: 158
in Lawrence, 178 in Lowell, and 618 in Lynn.
Building Staff Capacity
BOSTnet training consisted of three events conducted in each city (Lynn, Lawrence,
and Lowell) during May, June, and July 2010. Trainings were two or three hours in
length for a total of seven hours of training for coaches, group leaders, and site
directors in each community. The focus of the trainings was on planning and
curriculum choice aligned to the Massachusetts English Language Arts (ELA)
Curriculum Frameworks. The three trainings were:
· Integrating Scientific Inquiry and Observation with Reading & Writing – presented by staff from New England Aquarium. This three-hour training was attended by 40 participants.
· Summer Program Preparation – Thematic curriculum, implementing KitzLit®. This two-hour training was attended by 43 participants: eight site directors, seven coaches, and 28 group leaders.
· Let's All Read! Maximizing Family Involvement in Literacy and Reading at Home – a two-hour training attended by 30 participants: five site directors, five coaches, and 20 group leaders.
The coaches had a range of two to more than fifteen years of teaching experience.
The BOSTnet coaches received an additional orientation on-site with the site
coordinator to establish relationships, build common goals, and ensure the
implementation of the program. All programs received 10 hours of support to plan
and develop a leveled library and a literacy-rich environment in each program. In the
beginning of the summer, coaching initially focused on modeling for the OST group
leaders. As the summer progressed, the coaches assumed a more facilitative role,
supporting the OST group leaders to take greater responsibility for the literacy
activities.
Implementing Intentional Literacy
The materials for project classrooms at each site included the KidzLit® curriculum.
For most BOSTnet programs, this was the first formal literacy curriculum used.
KidzLit® is a ―reading enrichment program designed specifically for use in out-of-
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 9 of 61
school settings. It increases young people‘s motivation to read and builds their
literacy skills. At the same time, it develops core values of helpfulness, fairness,
personal responsibility, and respect for others. Leaders use a process in which
children hear engaging books read aloud—or read them independently—and make
connections to their own lives. They express their feelings and grapple with big ideas
through discussion, drama, art, movement, and writing‖ (KidzLit® website:
http://www.devstu.org/afterschool-kidzlit). In addition, approximately 900 books were
purchased and distributed and multiple cases of free Highlights for Children
magazine were provided to each BOSTnet site.
When asked what the children liked best in the literacy program, the literacy coaches
cited the read-alouds and the connecting activities involving role-playing, songs,
movement, and art. In addition, they mentioned doing ―mad libs‖ with the Cool
Words; being read to one-on-one and being encouraged to read; reading poems to
the group (after practicing them privately); writing directions and ingredients; and
having lively discussions about the books. One group even wrote and performed a
play.
The majority of BOSTnet group leaders reported spending about two to six hours per
week on literacy activities.
Impact on Students
While 954 children participated in the OST programs, 271 children in the eight OST
programs in Lowell, Lawrence, and Lynn were assessed for pre-post literacy skills.
The demographics of these children reflected the urban centers being served: 55%
were Latino/a, 23% were African-American, 20% were white/Caucasian, and 7%
were of various other backgrounds. The BOSTnet children‘s average grade
placement in the fall will be 4.6.
BOSTnet assessed literacy skills using the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills) Oral Reading Fluency test. On this test, each child reads orally
a passage at the targeted grade level. Omitted words, substitutions, or hesitations of
longer than three seconds are scored as errors. The number of correct words per
minute is the oral reading fluency rate. DIBELS identifies which students are on track
to read successfully and which students are at risk of having reading difficulties.
Of the 271 children tested pre and post, literacy remained the same or increased for
196 children, or 72%, with the average change in DIBELS score being +3.3 points.
Eight children began the summer as non-readers (a score of 0 on DIBELS), and only
two of the 271 tested finished the summer as non-readers.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 10 of 61
All BOSTnet sites showed increases in DIBELS scores, with Site #4 showing the
greatest increase and only Site #8 showing the summer learning loss typical of an
urban program. The hub director spoke about possible contributions to these results.
She mentioned the intentional literacy activities supported by KidzLit® curriculum,
and a strong effort by the hub literacy coordinator to communicate with the coaches
through weekly coaching logs (see Attachment G: BOSTnet Coaching Sheet) and to
provide ongoing focus and encouragement on the summer literacy activities. At Site
#8, the site that showed few literacy improvements, the coach was unable to attend
any of the trainings and administrative commitment to the project seemed mixed.
The data collected by the evaluator provided no correlation between literacy skill
retention and any individual student factors such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and
program attendance rates. Establishing cause and effect in educational interventions
is difficult, especially in eight uniquely situated programs, managed by various
organizations, with varying levels of staff skills and experience. The full package of
the literacy initiative (materials, training, coaching, and hub oversight), especially
with the focus on the intentional literacy activities and the ability of the staff, clearly
had the greatest impact on BOSTnet outcomes.
The DIBELS data verifies that 196 of 271 BOSTnet children retained or made
progress in literacy skills, while national norms would predict a three-month loss of
reading skills. Eight BOSTnet students started the summer as non-readers, testing 0
on the DIBELS, and only two of them ended the summer in this category.
Impact on Staff
Forty-three BOSTnet staff (eight site directors, seven coaches, 20 group leaders,
and eight other staff) participated in professional development sessions. In addition,
100% of site directors, coaches, and group leaders reported that the project
impacted them favorably. They reported improved staff capacity to implement
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 11 of 61
summer literacy activities, and plan to continue the literacy activities through the
year. The hub director felt that ―getting the group leaders comfortable in planning and
delivering literacy activities was a major result; a number of the staff identified
themselves as ‗reluctant readers,‘ but had a growing confidence in working with
coaches and literacy materials to make the activities fun for the children and
themselves.‖ BOSTnet, as a hub, saw their key role as supporting program staff to
focus on a core vision—intentional literacy activities; to facilitate problem-solving;
and to gather and share learning among the sites.
BOSTnet OST Group Leaders
17 of the 20 BOSTnet group leaders responded to the anonymous survey either
online or via paper survey. They reported that their ability to implement literacy
activities improved in the following ways:
• ―encouraging children to pick out one vocabulary word from the list, write a
sentence about it, and draw a picture to describe it‖
• ―using more creative ways to have the children learn, such as role plays, group
games, etc.‖
• ―the concept of cool words‖
• ―understanding better what types of activities to do with the kids‖
• ―training sessions helped with planning focused literacy activities‖
• ―having the children write suggestions, comments like career goals, favorite topics,
and even a hypothesis which we tested‖
• ―writing conclusions and reactions from our science experiments‖
One of the group leaders expressed confidence that she could ―continue the
activities during the year, and had a better understanding of incorporating literacy
into the daily/weekly program routine.‖
“I know what types of activities my kids like that involve literacy, and I can
continue doing them year round. Now I'm more creative at doing activities for
literacy.” BOSTnet group leader.
What made the project successful? One group leader felt that ―the coach‘s modeling
worked better than the trainings,‖ while another felt that the ―training surely helped.‖
Coaching was seen as the most effective element, ―providing extra support,‖
―facilitating brainstorming,‖ and ―helping teachers come up with ideas on how to
squeeze in literacy.‖ Other comments:
• ―The activities book, games, and resources were so effective that the children
almost didn't realize we were even teaching them.‖
• ―Connecting with our public library to get essential resources that were lacking
really helped.‖
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 12 of 61
Group leaders rated using a scale of one (‖to a very small extent‖) to five (―to a very
great extent‖) the following:
Literacy activities
BOSTnet group
leaders reporting
Enthusiasm working with
coach to enhance summer
literacy
4.7
Effectiveness of coaching
model to implementation
4.6
The group leaders indicated that the coaching was highly effective, and were
enthusiastic about working with the coaches.
Group leaders rated on a scale of one (―Literacy skills are NOT valued‖) to five
(―Literacy skills are a critical component of OST program and play a critical role in
curriculum‖):
Critical component as rated
by group leaders
BOSTnet group
leaders reporting
Programs‘ value of literacy 4.39
Children‘s value of literacy 3.33
Group leaders‘ value of literacy 4.61
In addition to coaching, the group leaders felt that the elements of the program that
made the greatest impact were the motivation and lead taken by the group leaders
themselves, and the overall program-site philosophy. These were also confirmed by
the hub staff as the key ingredients for a successful program. Group leaders felt their
enthusiasm helped youth in the program be motivated.
Group leaders were also asked to rate the ―importance of the following components
in your ability to carry out the summer literacy program,‖ with one being ―not
important‖ and five being ―very important‖:
Critical literacy component
as rated by group leaders
BOSTnet
group leaders
Having literacy materials in the
classroom
4.83
Regular field trips 3.94
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 13 of 61
Experience teaching literacy to children
who know two languages
3.94
Group leaders indicated that having the literacy materials in the classroom was most
important, with somewhat lower value placed on regular field trips and the need to
understand the literacy techniques of working with English Language Learners.
The implementation challenges reported by group leaders included reading aloud
(for one new group leader); not receiving the materials until nearly the end of
summer; wishing the coach was at site in the early stages when planning; lack of
children‘s participation early in the project; lack of consistent student attendance; not
enough time to plan; difficulties doing the book club; and engaging younger children
who still hadn't learned the basics of reading.
BOSTnet Coaches
The BOSTnet provided 800 hours of coaching; these coaches averaged seven to
fifteen years of teaching experience and one to two years of coaching experience. All
eight of the BOSTnet coaches would be eager to participate in the project if it were to
be offered again. As one stated, ―I would welcome the opportunity with open arms!
This is a population that needs to see how an outgrowth of reading can be
enjoyment!‖
As the coaches reflected on their learning, they mentioned that school-age programs
can do a lot to support in-school learning. The staff improved dramatically throughout
the summer, and this was clearly evident as the curriculum implementation became
a seamless part of the program.
When asked how the experience changed the coach relationship with OST staff, all
the coaches‘ comments followed these veins: ―newfound respect,‖ ‖a great pleasure
working with OST personnel,‖ ―relationship with OST personnel has improved,‖ ―a
greater appreciation for the amount of work and preparation needed,‖ and ―a
wonderful learning experience for me.‖
The major challenges mentioned by the coaches were getting over the children‘s
reluctance to engage in activities that felt like school during the summer, the late
arrival of the KidzLit® materials, and the fact there was only one copy of each book
for each group. Some programs purchased additional copies so children could read
along, but some continued to do primarily read-alouds. Other challenges mentioned
were turnover in staffing and children coming and going in the program.
In addition, one coach stated that the ―schedule allowed only one hour per week to
focus on literacy activities; staff lacked experience implementing a reading
curriculum; and [there was a] high level of apathy shown by the students.‖ She went
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 14 of 61
on to note that some of the apathy was alleviated by children‘s interest in the themes
of the books and by the variety of activities.
Coaches reported interest in returning the following summer if funding is available.
For future summer literacy programs, several coaches recommended the inclusion of
additional books so every student can have a copy, chapter books for older students,
and having the materials earlier in the planning phase. It was also noted that a
minimum dosage of literacy and related activities should be one hour a day. Specific
curriculum suggestions included:
• Showcasing materials students have created throughout the summer to show parents and funders what has been achieved through use of the materials
• Having the students write letters to the funders explaining what they have learned throughout the summer, or write letters to their teachers explaining what skills they would like to improve upon in the school year
• A portfolio of work created by each child to show what to work on in the upcoming year
Partnerships with Schools and Families
At the outset of the grant, the hub reached out to all three communities‘ school
officials to get buy-in for the project in preparing the proposal; assistance in posting
coaching positions in each district; and advice for project information-sharing and
communications with district contacts. In addition, district superintendents
participated in the showcase events in Lawrence and Lowell.
At the beginning of the grant, there was much discussion around the EEC targets
regarding meetings with school staff. It was agreed that as a summer-only program
with limited access to school personnel, it would be best to focus on initial
awareness of the program, invitations to see the program, and sharing the results of
the evaluation in the fall. Public relations events held in Lawrence and Lowell
brought superintendents or representatives from their office out to see the summer
literacy initiative in action. The third community, Lynn, was successful in creating
positive coverage in the press (see Attachment H: BOSTnet Article in Lynn Item and
Attachment I: BOSTnet Article from United Way Website).
Having coaches who are public-school teachers working with OST leaders created
an opportunity for both worlds to learn from each other. The summer literacy
coaches who are also public-school staff spoke of gaining respect for the OST
leaders, their strong relationships with children, and their emphasis on fun, and
expressed a desire to bring these qualities back to their teaching roles. OST leaders
spoke of how the coaches made teaching literacy skills transparent to them, and of
their intention to carry on literacy teaching during the school year.
Besides partnering with schools, the following family literacy activities were utilized
over the summer, as reported by BOSTnet group leaders:
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 15 of 61
Literacy activities
BOSTnet group
leaders of 17
responding
Distributed books linked with
children‘s cultural
background
15
Distributed bilingual books 10
Provided workshops for
families
6
Provided literacy activities for
families
6
Additional family literacy activities included ―summer reading books required for book
reports,‖ and ―reading time,‖ and one site director reported having ten volunteers in
the program. The end-of-summer program celebrations shared the children‘s literacy
activities with their families.
Family literacy interactions were mostly at the end-of-summer program celebrating
literacy activities with the children. Other activities included newsletter updates on
the project and showcasing children‘s work in classrooms. One site had monthly
open-house events to bring parents into the site for an informal social gathering.
Children‘s artwork related to the project was posted at site and sent home. Free
cases of Highlights for Children magazine, sent to all sites, were available for take-
home.
Strengths of the BOSTnet Model
BOSTnet strengths included:
1. Data demonstrates the impact of the literacy intervention on children‘s literacy skills.
2. Outreach to families with literacy materials and events was a strength. 3. Coaches and group leaders ―owned‖ the effort and were proud of their
successes, and plan to continue the literacy concepts during the school year. The enthusiasm of the children‘s participation in the activities inspired the coaches and group leaders.
4. Coaches and group leaders felt that this was successful way to engage English Language Learners.
5. The coaches served as an additional bridge between the OST program sites and the public-schools.
6. The showcase activities raised community awareness of the educational potential in OST programs.
Considerations Moving Forward
1. BOSTnet should share the stories of its successes and challenges, encouraging programs to tell what they have learned from participating in the project.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 16 of 61
2. Plan training earlier, and include coaches when planning summer activities. 3. Knowing that getting the money flowing was a challenge this summer, work to
ensure that materials are available ahead of time. 4. Encourage parents to have their child attend regularly. While the goal of perfect
attendance is challenging, as summer brings vacations and other impromptu happenings, setting this expectation might translate to better results.
5. Consider funding time for one specific person to help each agency coordinate with schools, clarify issues about confidentiality, and develop systems to share student data.
6. Offer training for coaches on using inclusive literature. One group leader reported that the ―coaches seemed less comfortable using books dealing with cultural and ethnic diversity in KidzLit®.‖
Section 4b – DELTAS Evaluation
Since 2000, the Boston Public Schools system (BPS) has dedicated full-time staff to
providing students with productive, enriching out-of-school-time (OST) experiences.
In 2006, these efforts led to the formation of a new BPS department: the Department
of Extended Learning Time, Afterschool, and Services (DELTAS). The mission of
DELTAS is to ensure that every student in the Boston Public Schools has access to
quality out-of-school-time activities and extended services. The DELTAS team
serves as a liaison to community agencies seeking to work with schools; supports
the link between what happens in the classroom and what happens during OST; and
manages BPS involvement in the OST sector. (DELTAS website:
http://www.bpsdeltas.org/about/index.htm)
DELTAS established and supported the Triumph Collaborative, a network of schools
and community centers that are individually and collectively trying to meet the needs
of the whole child through family, school, and community partnerships. As a hub in
the OST project, DELTAS modeled their initiative on the Triumph Collaborative
programs: building sites‘ capacity to implement high-quality programming that is
aligned to local learning standards and serving Boston Public Schools students.
DELTAS sought to share curriculum resources piloted across other initiatives with
the five Boston community based OST sites: 1)Think! Fun, a highly interactive
curriculum designed for OST programs and aligned with curriculum standards, 2)
Quirkles, a science-infused literacy curriculum, and 3) SmartTALK strategies
employed in the Harvard Academic Support Initiative (HASI).
With the OST funding, DELTAS worked in Boston with five OST sites from a single
nonprofit agency who had partnered with DELTAS on prior initiatives. These sites
were committed to quality improvement but could not easily move forward without
funding support or literacy expertise. DELTAS staff had prior experience with some
of the sites, and ―felt we could work together.‖ Two of the individual school-based
programs were selected because they were at underperforming or turnaround
schools. As it turned out, summer enrollment is very diverse, drawing from children
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 17 of 61
who attend many different schools across the city. The result was that many of the
OST youth were not enrolled in the two underperforming schools.
Building Staff Capacity
Professional development was provided through a collaboration with ReadBoston
(the city‘s literacy initiative), the hub, and the BPS director of English language arts.
Created in 2000, ReadBoston's After School Reading Initiative has ―worked with after
school programs throughout the city of Boston promoting a love of reading, literature,
and literacy‖ (ReadBoston website:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/ReadBoston/JCSRB.asp).
ReadBoston presented six DELTAS trainings: 1) Reading Aloud, 2) Book
Extensions, 3) Multiple Intelligences, 4) Enviro-Literacy, 5) Music and Movement,
and 6) Strategies for Implementing Literacy and Learning Activities. Two additional
trainings were presented by DELTAS staff and a coach hired by DELTAS: 1)
Planning Literacy and Thematic Activities, and 2) Building Vocabulary. In addition,
the BPS director of English language arts worked with the hub director to align the
content of the core training with BPS objectives. Most of the group leaders attended
all of the trainings. There were two sites where one group leader missed one of the
trainings.
DELTAS developed and administered a staff pre-assessment to determine baseline
knowledge (see Attachment J: DELTAS Literacy Self-Assessment for Group
Leaders). This tool asked group leaders to self-assess how they ―feel about your
abilities as an activity leader‖ (10 = Very Uncomfortable; 100 = Very Comfortable).
This is a potential tool to collect group-leader feedback in future OST projects.
Professional development of twenty hours over the eight sessions was made
available to the site director and two group leaders from each site with the
assumption that the group leaders would both be working with the target group.
DELTAS worked with a team of three coaches, two who had ReadBoston
experience, each working in one site, and one hired directly by DELTAS to work in
three sites. The first two each worked with two group leaders who had training and
were assigned to two groups; the third coach juggled three locations, and supported
five groups. The average amount of coaching support for each group was about two-
and-a-half hours per week, as confirmed by group leaders who reported having an
average of two to four hours of coaching per week.
The DELTAS coaches had a wealth of prior coaching and literacy experience and
they received additional orientation to Reading Street (see below) and the OST grant
goals. They developed relationships directly with site directors, and worked to keep
them abreast of progress during the summer. The DELTAS hub supported the
coaches by sharing coaching resources, reviewing their weekly coaching logs,
phone conferencing (every week or two), and doing some direct observation.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 18 of 61
Implementing Intentional Literacy
In September 2009, Boston Public Schools (BPS) adopted Scott Foresman‘s
Reading Street for the systems‘ elementary literacy curriculum. Reading Street is
designed to help teachers build readers through motivating and engaging literature,
scientifically research-based instruction, and a wealth of reliable teaching tools (Scott
Foresman Reading Street website:
http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZ4Z4&PMDbSiteID=2781&PM
DbSolutionID=6724&PMDbProgramId=30321&level=4&prognav=po).
The DELTAS OST curriculum was conceptually linked to Reading Street goals of:
reading comprehension, vocabulary, building background knowledge, and book
extension activities. Thematic units were developed each week by the coaches with
input from OST group leaders. These thematic units included lesson plans, books,
field trips, and co-planning of extension activities (see Attachment K: DELTAS Field
Trips). The goals were to develop literacy activities to deepen concepts, to connect
with children‘s lives, and to document vocabulary learned along the way.
The materials for each site were purchased based on the themes and included:
books, art materials for extension activities, and miscellaneous literacy supports,
such as a storage cart for books. The education coordinator at the central office of
the nonprofit agency supported the sites by coordinating and placing the orders.
This was an organic curriculum whose success depended on extremely talented and
resource-rich coaches. Initially the group leaders had few ideas to contribute to the
planning as it was unlike anything they had ever done before. As the summer
progressed, they felt more comfortable with the literacy elements (see Attachment L:
DELTAS Activity Planner).
The DELTAS group leaders reported at the completion of the project:
• ―understand a little better how to implement the literacy activities‖
• ―made me more confident and in my the ability to teach others‖
• ―just being fearless and going all out‖
• ―allowed me to be able to implement literacy program much easier.‖
DELTAS group leaders reported spending two to four hours a week on literacy
activities.
The challenges in the implementation for the group leaders included: ―keeping the
focus on the children,‖ ―the schedule, summer is busy and we have a lot planned,‖
―reading levels of the children,‖ and ―some children understand, and some don‘t.‖
One coach reported that what the children like best ―was different for every group.
The bilingual students in East Boston enjoyed reading a book that described
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 19 of 61
emotions by color and making masks that reflected the ‗emo-colors‘. They also
delighted in teaching me the Spanish words for each color. A middle school group of
young men in Dorchester enjoyed the opportunity to debate the loyalty (or lack
thereof) of a certain NBA player by using a list of new vocabulary.‖
Another coach commented, ―Children loved movement literacy games. They also
loved engaging picture books, especially some nonfiction animal stories and stories
that allowed for student participation. Students also enjoyed drawing activities
connected to the read alouds.‖
“The children really enjoyed the stories read aloud to them. I have returned to
the site and many students will talk to me about their favorite books they
heard during the summer time. They also truly enjoyed hands-on extension
activities that took place outside.” DELTAS literacy coach
Impact on Students
367 children at five sites participated in the DELTAS programs; of those, 159
children were assessed for pre-post literacy skills. The enrollment by neighborhoods
of Boston:
DELTAS planned to use the testing results collected by the Boston Public Schools in
May and September. Since the BPS literacy initiative focused on comprehension,
DELTAS planned to use the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and
Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) data for literacy outcomes; however, over the
summer, the BPS English Language Arts Department decided to drop both the DRA
and SRI data collection, so DELTAS used DIBELS and Terra Nova data to
determine children‘s literacy progress.
367 students participated in the DELTAS literacy initiative; pre-post literacy data are
available for 159 students from the five sites. The demographics of these children
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 20 of 61
reflected the Boston urban school system: 38% Latino/a, 51% African-American, 7%
white/Caucasian, 1% Asian, and 2% of various other backgrounds.
The plan to utilize existing BPS data created a unique data set. Data was collected
by the public school teachers in March, and again the first week of October, whereas
the other two hubs collected data in June and August. This additional time period
includes 12 more weeks of public school instruction prior to the summer break and
four weeks following the summer break, making it difficult to determine the unique
effectiveness of the summer program. In addition, the primary focus of the summer
program was reading comprehension, and the district modified their assessment
strategy to use DIBELS, a reading fluency assessment, for the younger grades in the
place of the proposed DRA. TerraNova, an assessment that measures reading
comprehension, was substituted for the SRI.
For first and second graders, the data available included two subtests of the
DIBELS, the Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), and the Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF).
The TerraNova data was available for the fourth and fifth graders. No data was
available for third graders, as the spring data was DIBELS and the fall data was
TerraNova.
The implementation by site varied, from a small site with literacy data for 7 children
showing 100% improvement to the largest site with data for 67 children showing 75%
improvement.
For the purpose of this evaluation, the data used was the NWF for first graders, ORF
for second graders, and the TerraNova data for fourth and fifth graders as that gave
the most accurate picture of literacy progress across the time frame, given the
available data.
1. NWF pre-post data was available for 49 first graders.
2. The ORF pre-post data was available for 48 second graders.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 21 of 61
3. The Terra Nova pre-post data was available for 34 fourth graders and 28 fifth
graders.
4. Of the 159 children with pre and post test data, literacy increased for 131
children, or 82%. No correlations were found between literacy success and
other data collected (grades, attendance, etc.).
The DIBELS data verifies that 80 of 97 DELTAS first and second graders and 52 of
62 DELTAS fourth and fifth graders retained or made progress in literacy skills.
Impact on Staff
This project impacted five site leaders, ten group leaders, and three coaches.
DELTAS OST Group Leaders
Seven of the ten DELTAS group leaders responded to the anonymous paper survey.
Group leaders in DELTAS programs reported to have about 5 years experience
working in OST programs. Their educational level ranged from a high-school diploma
to a bachelor‘s degree; most have some college-level courses. The majority of the
respondents indicated that OST programming is their chosen career.
The two most important elements of the project as rated by the DELTAS group
leaders were (1) the literacy materials, and (2) experience teaching literacy to
children who know two languages. The DELTAS group leaders felt reading out loud,
especially role-playing and creating fun reading activities, and all the literacy
activities with the children were what made the project successful.
Group leaders using a scale of one (―to a very small extent‖) to five (―to a very great
extent‖) rated the following:
Literacy activities
DELTAS group
leaders
Enthusiasm working with
coach to enhance summer
literacy
4.1
Effectiveness of coaching
model to implementation
4.3
The group leaders indicated that coaching was highly effective and that they were
enthusiastic about working with the coaches.
Group leaders rated the following on a scale of one (―Literacy skills are NOT valued‖)
to five (―Literacy skills are a critical component of OST program and play a critical
role in curriculum‖):
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 22 of 61
Critical component As rated by
DELTAS group
leaders
Programs‘ value of literacy 4.3
Children‘s value of literacy 4.1
Group leaders‘ value of literacy 4.3
In addition to coaching, the group leaders felt that their commitment and that of the
sites were critical to the success.
Group leaders were also asked to rate the ―importance of the following components
in your ability to carry out the summer literacy program,‖ with one being ―not
important‖ and five being ―very important‖:
Critical literacy components
as rated by group leaders
DELTAS
group leaders
Having literacy materials in the
classroom
4.9
Regular field trips 4.1
Experience teaching literacy to children
who know two languages
4.9
Literacy materials and knowledge in teaching children who know two languages
were cited by group leaders as very important to implementing the literacy activities.
DELTAS Coaches’ Summary
The three DELTAS coaches provided 320 hours of coaching. They were all
experienced coaches, two having more than five years coaching experience and one
with two to five years of coaching experience. All reported having one to five hours of
training in coaching in the last year, plus an additional literacy training that averaged
30 hours per coach. All three coaches completed the paper survey forms.
Coaches described the most effective elements as:
• ―Implementing the read aloud and activities with the students‖
• ―Ability to begin relationship development with staff through training time so that a
level of trust was built before ‗true‘ coaching began‖
• ―Providing literacy curriculum to students, who would not have gotten it otherwise
over the summer.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 23 of 61
Reflecting on what they learned from the projects, coaches stated:
• ―Coaching with staff in summer programs can be challenging, given the lack of
reflection time afforded by an already overfilled staff schedule, as well as the fact
that both supervisors and staff are often working together for the first time -- some
programs struggled to implement consistent literacy activity time while working on
general supervisory relationships.‖
• ―I learned how to be more flexible and how to structure a read aloud for a group of
50 students.‖
• ―When a staff member's knowledge is being broadened with coaching, it is very
important that they have the time and ability to separate completely from their
responsibilities and be able to focus completely on coaching.‖
“The project reinforced for me that the summer time is a great opportunity to
extend and strengthen learning for students, but that it needs to occur in a
very thoughtful and strategic manner.” DELTAS coach
When asked if they would do the summer literacy initiative again, two said yes, and a
third coach qualified it with ―only if the structure of summer camp can support the
goals of the initiative including: having enough staff so children can be broken into
small groups for reading times; space that is appropriate for read alouds; literacy
books and supplies arriving at the start of camp as opposed to the end; having more
time to coach staff so they can absorb and practice the new literacy skills and
techniques being introduced.‖
Partnerships with Schools and Families
Unlike the other two hubs which are nonprofit intermediaries, the hub in Boston is a
department within the Boston Public Schools. In this capacity, the Boston hub project
director met with the family literacy coordinator of the BPS Family and Student
Engagement Office and the director of English arts to plan Boston‘s summer training
and activities. The Director of English language arts reviewed the new BPS English
language arts curriculum, Reading Street, with the project director and helped
determine that the most appropriate focus for the summer would be the reading
comprehension component.
With this information in-hand, the hub project coordinator met with five principals of
the targeted schools to review the goals of the initiative and seek their buy-in. All
were extremely pleased that their site was selected and that the initiative‘s focus
would be aligned with the Reading Street curriculum. Each site director of a
participating OST program had a prior relationship with both school leadership and
classroom teachers and planned to share an overview of the summer curriculum and
evaluation report upon returning to school in the fall.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 24 of 61
The family literacy coordinator for BPS underscored the importance of making
information about what children were learning available to families, and of providing
families with material and ideas for how they could extend learning at home. Sites
made families aware of the literacy focus for the summer; responses ranged from
delight that this enrichment was available to concern about taking away from the
time children might have for physical activity. This enabled staff to engage families in
a conversation about the benefits of actively engaging children in literacy and
learning activities. Program sites were given a handout to send home to families,
called ―Tips for Keeping the Summer Learning Faucet On,‖ which was available in
both English and Spanish. These tips underscored ways families could support
children‘s learning through simple activities they could do together over the summer.
Several sites invited families to join in literacy activities when the ReadBoston
StoryMobile was scheduled to make a visit nearby in the community. All sites had
literacy-rich environments including word walls, schedules of the literacy activities for
the week, posters, and charts created with and by children documenting their
learning which families could view and enjoy when they came to pick up their
children. Stories written by children were also shared with families.
In addition to the links with the public schools, the following family literacy activities
were used over the summer, as reported by the DELTAS group leaders:
Literacy activities
Of 7 DELTAS
group leaders
reporting
Distributed books linked with
children‘s cultural
background
3
Distributed bilingual books 2
Provided workshops for
families
2
Provided literacy activities for
families
5
At the conclusion of the summer program, the DELTAS project director was able to
share information about the impact of the summer literacy program with the district‘s
chief academic officer and the learning supports team. As specific results become
available, they will be shared with OST program staff, schools, and the district
administrators in order to plan next steps.
Strengths of the DELTAS Model
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 25 of 61
1. Coaches were very strong in terms of prior coaching experience and literacy training.
2. Link with ReadBoston, the city of Boston‘s literacy initiative, for both training and a source of coaches.
3. Link with Boston Public Schools as DELTAS is a department within BPS. 4. Utilizing the BPS curriculum, Reading Street, as a foundation for intentional
literacy activities/structure. 5. Utilizing existing data collection systems reduced duplicate testing of children. 6. Group leaders averaged five years‘ experience and reported being committed to
staying in the field. 7. Development of staff assessment to determine baseline knowledge (see
Attachment J: DELTAS Literacy Self-Assessment for Group Leaders).
Considerations Moving Forward
1. DELTAS hub director felt that the project should in the future select fewer sites and go deeper with all the groups. The impact would be greater and likely more sustainable.
2. While there were many advantages in collaborating closely with the district, the primary challenge was in relying on access to pre-post data that dependent on the school system‘s data collection and data entry and was therefore unavailable to meet the original timelines of the grant.
3. Linkage with turnaround schools by connecting with neighborhood OST programs was not as strong as had been thought, as OST enrollment was from a far wider geographic area.
4. Developing criteria for site selection is an important consideration for future projects.
5. Literacy self-assessment should be shared and used by other hubs, as an additional data tool to demonstrate impact of program on OST staff.
Section 4c – WestMOST Evaluation
The WestMOST Network worked with four OST sites in Worcester, three in
Springfield, and one in Holyoke. WestMOST provided literacy instruction through
thematic activities to 501 children: 26 in Holyoke, 130 in Springfield, and 345 in
Worcester. As the hub, WestMOST provided OST programs at these sites with
materials, training, coaching, and support to implement the summer literacy initiative
in programs that typically otherwise might focus on social-emotional skills, sports,
and recreational activities.
WestMOST had the most prior experience of the hubs in providing summer literacy
support to OST programs, having been funded since 2006 through grants from the
Hasbro Summer Literacy Initiative in Springfield. Six of the eight EEC-funded sites
had not participated in prior WestMOST funding, with the two exceptions being
Springfield YMCA and MLK Citizen School.
Building Staff Capacity
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 26 of 61
WestMOST, in collaboration with Springfield and Holyoke Public Schools, offered 27
hours of training on topics including 1) relationships, language, and learning (a 3-part
series), 2) thematic curriculum, 3) literacy strategies, 4) quality improvement, 5)
behavior management, and 6) trauma-informed practices. Training was attended
primarily by the program directors and site coordinators of each OST site and the
coaches (called ―literacy specialists‖ by WestMOST).
In this train-the-trainer model, the directors and coaches in turn were to provide
training for the group leaders who worked directly with the children on a full-time
basis. However, only three of the eight programs found adequate time to implement
this strategy. WestMOST supplied thematic curriculum materials to programs, and
while the hub staff had prior experience with thematic curriculum in other locations, it
was new to all the Worcester sites.
WestMOST provided a coach (literacy specialist) for fifteen hours of coaching in
each program, regardless of the number of children served. The coaches had a
minimum of three to five years of teaching experience. The coaches participated in
five hours of training and two supervisory meetings. Coaching intentionally varied
over the course of the summer, with the coaches initially doing a great deal of
modeling for the OST group leaders, including read-alouds with the children. As the
summer progressed, the coaches assumed a more facilitative role, supporting the
OST group leaders to take responsibility for the literacy activities. The coaches were
supported by two supervisory meetings, three or four site visits by the literacy
coordinators, and five hours of training on DIBELS testing, universal strategies, and
coaching techniques.
Implementing Intentional Literacy
WestMOST Literacy and Learning sites in Springfield and Holyoke used thematic
curriculum entitled: 1) Design Squad, 2) Boston Children‘s Museum, 3) watershed, 4)
HEAT club (on fitness and nutrition), and 5) Life Mapping Literacy. Activities in the
Holyoke and Springfield sites were linked to the theme the site was using. The four
Worcester sites decided not to use HSLI thematic curriculum as their directors had
mapped out other themes for their summer. However, the programs did receive the
fitness curriculum and a fitness training. In addition, a coach at one site focused on
an author study of Eric Carle; while the other coach linked reading materials to the
weekly themes happening at the site.
All eight sites implemented ―universal literacy strategies‖ for all program participants
to spend time in literacy activities that included:
Read-alouds Reader‘s theater, shared and choral reading Independent reading, buddy reading, book clubs Journal writing Literacy centers that included books on tape, literacy board games, graffiti
walls, ―mad libs,‖ etc. (See Attachment M: WestMOST Universal Strategies and Thematic Curriculum.)
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 27 of 61
Group leaders documented the literacy strategies on the Summer Planning Sheet
(see Attachment N: WestMOST Summer Planning Sheet): Thematic Curriculum,
Read Alouds, Readers Theater, Shared and Choral Reading, Book Clubs, Buddy
Reading, Independent Reading, and Literacy Stations. In addition, WestMOST
provided books linked to the thematic curriculum and arranged for a license for all
sites to access the Reading A to Z website (www.readinga-z.com), where group
leaders could access printable books, Reader‘s Theater scripts, poems, and other
materials leveled for various reading abilities. (See Attachment O: WestMOST Ideas
for Activity Centers.) The majority of WestMOST group leaders reported spending
four to six hours per week on literacy activities.
Impact on Students
651 youth participated in thematic literacy activities sponsored through this project.
WestMOST, along with another hub, BOSTnet, and second graders in DELTAS used
the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) Oral Reading Fluency
test. 210 children were pre- and post-tested in the eight WestMOST sites. Of these,
133 children (63%) increased or maintained their literacy skills. Five children tested
as non-readers at the start of summer, with only three testing as non-readers at the
end of the summer.
The coaches agreed that what the children liked best were the read-alouds, the
literacy stations, the games, and the spontaneity and creativity of the extension
activities. The coaches felt that rituals for journal writing, connections among the
adults around literacy activities, and the ―opportunity to see students in a different
light during the summer‖ were what made the project most effective.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 28 of 61
The range of literacy success varied among the WestMOST sites; the greatest
percentage of children who maintained or gained literacy skills at Site #8 with 79%
and least at Site #2 with 41%. When the hub director was interviewed to explain
some of the variation, she noted that the hub staff and coach believe that there are
five factors that influence the effectiveness of implementing new programs in OST
sites: 1) the overall program quality, 2) the commitment of leadership, 3) the number
of group leaders with college degrees, 4) the number of English Language Learners,
and 5) the number of at-risk readers. Providing training and coaching needs to be
partnered with program leadership commitment and program quality to achieve the
desired impact of maintaining or improving reading scores. In addition, WestMOST
continues to explore strategies to strengthen ELL supports.
“Can I stay? I’m in the middle of a chapter!” WestMOST student to parent at
pick-up time.
While the goal was to reduce summer reading loss for every child, given that low-
income children typically lose 2-3 months of reading skills (the DIBELS score goes
down by15 points for a third grader), nearly all children tested better than would be
expected. The DIBELS measures words read per minute and the benchmark scores
jump rapidly in the early years: for an average first grader in the spring, the
benchmark is 40; second grader is 90 and third grader is 110.
The data collected by the evaluator provides no correlation between literacy skill
retention and any individual factors. Establishing cause and effect in educational
intervention is difficult, yet the full package of intentional literacy activities—thematic
curriculum, materials, training, coaching, and a focus on quality improvement—
clearly had a significant impact on WestMOST literacy outcomes.
The DIBELS data verifies that 133 of 210 WestMOST children retained or made
progress in literacy skills, while national norms would predict a three-month loss of
reading skills.
Impact on Staff
The majority of hub site directors, coaches, and group leaders reported that the
project impacted them favorably, and that they plan to continue the literacy activities,
or to return as coaches the following summer if funding is available.
WestMOST OST Group Leaders
Thirty-five WestMOST group leaders completed the survey, reporting that:
• the project supported ―a more intentional approach to implementing literacy‖
• ―the realization of the importance of staff training where they learned that literacy
can happen out of the classroom‖
• ―I am better able to add literacy activities to the general curriculum‖
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 29 of 61
• they had ―learned different techniques to teach children how to read and sound out
words‖
• ―new materials helped in planning a variety of new literacy activities‖ and
―generated new ideas to incorporate literacy with a fun aspect to it‖
Group leaders rated coaching using a scale of one, ―to a very small extent,‖ to five,
―to a very great extent.‖
Literacy activities
WestMOST group
leaders reporting
Enthusiasm working with
coach to enhance summer
literacy
3.6
Effectiveness of coaching
model to implementation
3.4
Six of the eight participating programs had group leaders who were enthusiastic in
implementation of all the supports available from this project. WestMOST hopes to
increase future scores above by focusing more attention on supports with group
leaders in the following ways:
· Require group leaders and site directors to attend curriculum and literacy training so they have more support from the beginning of the summer effort.
· Insure that coaches focus more on support and capacity-building of group leaders. Some coaches were excellent in this effort, while others focused more during this first year on their own implementation of the strategies.
For the WestMOST group leaders, the best parts of the project included:
―having a person on staff to help set up literacy centers,‖
―putting on plays/skits, individualizing reading,
―having the children read aloud to each other,‖
―playing literacy games like ‗apples to apples‘ and ‗catch-phrase,
―giving individual attention to children through ‗readers theater‘ as well as
promoting group work‖
Group leaders rated the following on a scale of one (‖Literacy skills are NOT valued‖)
to five (―Literacy skills are a critical component of OST program and play a critical
role in curriculum‖):
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 30 of 61
Critical
component as
reported by group
leaders
WestMOST group
leaders reporting
Programs‘ value of
literacy
3.91
Children‘s value of
literacy
3.12
Group leaders‘
value of literacy
3.94
Scores were higher in programs where the site coordinator worked in close
connection with the coach, was effective in motivating staff to implement literacy
strategies, and where the coach spent more time on building the capacity of staff
than in her own implementation of the strategies. Conversely, the scores are lower at
sites where site coordinators resisted the literacy activities, did not meet and work
with the coach, or where the coach didn‘t build strong relationships with group
leaders. In the future, the hub staff and supervisors would spend more time insuring
that participating programs meet some ―readiness‖ criteria and that coaches work in
a deeper way to build relationships and skill for group leaders.
“Children learned about phonics, spelling, and writing skills through creative
journal writing that they actively chose to do. It was authentic learning with a
purpose they understood. It was wonderful!!” WestMOST group leader
Group leaders were also asked to rate the ―importance of the following components
in your ability to carry out the summer literacy program,‖ with one being not important
and five being very important:
Critical literacy component
as rated by group leaders
WestMOST
group leaders
Having literacy materials in the
classroom
4.63
Regular field trips 4.06
Experience teaching literacy to children
who know two languages
4.03
WestMOST group leaders found that the financial support from this grant made it
possible to purchase literacy materials, support English Language Learners, and
provide field trips to museums, libraries, and events relevant to the site‘s thematic
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 31 of 61
curriculum. For many programs, the grant allowed them to work on building a
meaningful library of books to replace a small collection of dusty and unattractive
books. These direct program grants are an essential support to programs, especially
in tight fiscal times.
“Campers could choose to practice writing, reading, or use alphabet cards to
play word spelling games. Once the time was established it became a well
oiled machine and the children really ran their own learning time.”
WestMOST group leader
The challenges for the WestMOST group leaders included:
• ―difficult to implement at times‖
• ―coping with a wide range of ages in the group‖
• ―initially establishing the routine of literacy time‖
• ―having a variety of reading levels‖
• ―working with children who don‘t read yet‖
Another leader commented, ―Older kids who are aware of ‗fun‘ activities such as
sports that were being swapped out every once in a while for reading activities [had
some resistance], but once they got involved they had good attitudes.‖
WestMOST Coaches
The six WestMOST coaches provided 960 hours of coaching. Five of the six
coaches returned the survey indicating they had an average of seven years teaching
experience, and ten hours of literacy training over the last five years. The
WestMOST coaches were enthusiastic about the OST project; however, one
expressed the desire to be at a different site to ―do this project again.‖ Another coach
said, ―I can‘t imagine a better gig!‖ The others reflected the sentiment that the project
was ―a great experience to bring literacy to summer programs that wouldn‘t normally
have included it.‖
As the coaches reflected on their learning, they highlighted:
· ―Small group activities with time limits eliminated many behavioral problems by allowing children to choose from several appropriate activities and to move when their interest lags.‖
· ―Preplanning is very important.‖ · ―To see programs that run with no awareness of literacy was eye opening, this
experience made me see how children need to be exposed to literacy in a place where they otherwise would not have gotten it.‖
· ―The amount of support from the staff was overwhelmingly delightful.‖
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 32 of 61
When asked how the experience changed the coach‘s relationship with OST staff,
they mentioned that it was an ―eye-opening‖ experience, and that they ―gained
confidence in the coaching role.‖ Only one coach mentioned that ―the staff were not
very well organized or receptive to suggestions.‖ Another coach described the OST
staff as ―intelligent and dedicated, with excellent leadership,‖ commenting that it is ―a
very difficult job to entertain children during out-of-school hours while providing
something educational.‖
The challenges the coaches mentioned were primarily based on the scheduling and
time factors: ―scheduling regarding to numbers of groups being supported, multiple
locations, field trips, or not enough time to meet with staff to plan.‖ Another coach
mentioned ―trying to figure out a curriculum in a program that did not have one for a
group of older students.‖
Partnerships with Schools and Families
The hub leader and partners from United Way of Central Massachusetts and the
Child Care Connection met with the Dr. Melinda Boone, Superintendent of Worcester
Schools, and Jeffrey Mulqueen, Chief Academic Officer, to discuss the initiative.
Originally, a school administrator suggested using strategies that are used by the
public schools. However, Dr. Boone asked that the Worcester sites utilize the
universal strategies, so that it would be appropriate for summer programming and
not duplicate what was happening during the school year.
The hub leader and its educational consultant held meetings with literacy
coordination staff of the Holyoke and Springfield Public School Departments, sharing
DIBELS results from summer 2009. They also discussed focusing on universal
literacy strategies. Other partnership efforts included:
· The Square One-DeBerry site was new and a special pilot site, partnering an elementary school with a community OST organization. The school principal identified her own specialist, participated in four planning meetings, worked with her staff to identify children most in need of summer support, and visited the program frequently during the summer. This partnership model is being utilized for the coming summer in Springfield through an NEA grant, and through Talk, Read, Succeed which is a Kellogg-funded project partnering two housing developments with two schools.
· The Springfield Public Schools health department identified two health educators as specialists with specific emphasis on the nutrition curriculum.
· DIBELS pre-post data was organized by schools that children were attending in fall 2010, and was sent to the superintendents, making it easier to forward the results onto the school principals.
The superintendents of both the Holyoke Public Schools and Worcester Public
Schools participated in a site visit.
Besides partnering with schools, the following family literacy activities were utilized
over the summer, as reported by WestMOST group leaders:
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 33 of 61
Literacy activities
WestMOST group
leaders reporting
Distributed books linked with
children's cultural
background
13
Distributed bilingual books 1
Provided workshops for
families
9
Provided literacy activities for
families
12
Other family literacy activities during the summer included: ―distributing books linked
with special activities,‖ ―talent show with a dinner,‖ and ―in-cabin activities.‖ Program
sites were given a handout to send home to families called ―Tips for Keeping the
Summer Learning Faucet On,‖ which was available in both English and Spanish.
Sites like Worcester Comprehensive and Holyoke BGC-Toepfert invited families to
participate in field trips. Some sites helped children and their families locate the
nearest library and obtain library cards.
Strengths of the WestMOST Model
1. In the WestMOST sites, the children demonstrated that the intentional focus on literacy supported their maintenance or improvement of literacy skills over the summer.
2. WestMOST experience in implementing summer literacy initiatives supported the other two hubs to build on their prior experiences.
3. The focus on intentional literacy activities also provided a clear structure and reduced the youth displays of challenging behavior during the summer months.
4. The existing model was expanded to new sites; these new sites demonstrated growth in children‘s literacy progress that was greater than prior expansions.
5. The coaches are hoping to return for another summer, and in the meantime, will take some of the informal literacy activities back to their public-school classrooms.
6. Interweaving thematic curriculum with universal literacy strategies seems to create the strongest model. Thematic curriculum is often the ―hook‖ that motivates children and can lead to more engaged readers. For example, one specialist was having trouble engaging 9-to-12-year-olds in reading, which they complained was too school-like. When the specialist began using the Boston Children‘s Museum curriculum to engage children in making butter or ice cream, or designing boats that can float, and connecting reading to those activities, the complaints stopped.
7. Family literacy activities authentically connected with the types of programming that were happening in the OST site (talent show with a dinner, and in-cabin activities).
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 34 of 61
8. Connection and partnership with the public schools, especially in Worcester, a new community for WestMOST, was intentional and well-thought-out.
Considerations Moving Forward
1. Additional planning time prior to the start of the program so the literacy specialist can be more involved with thematic planning, gathering appropriate literacy supplements, and preparing written supports.
2. Provide planning during each week with the coach. 3. More hours so the literacy specialist can be present to support staff in developing
and implementing their own literacy activities. 4. Change the name of the position from ―literacy specialist‖ to ―coach‖ so that sites
do not think that the ―specialist‖ is there to teach and do everything (recommended by a ―literacy specialist‖).
5. Differentiate literacy training for age groups (six to nine years old and over nine years old), for English Language Learners, and to accommodate individual differences within these groups.
6. Programs that are unable to attend the initial meeting may be better served by waiting a year until they are ready to commit to moving forward. The program that didn‘t attend was difficult to communicate with.
7. Coordinate field trips with thematic literacy activities. 8. Focus training to deepen conversations to encourage children‘s thinking, and
extend the activities. 9. Increase children‘s time on text, as volume of reading should produce even better
outcomes.
Section 5 – Learning Community
The United Way staff facilitated five three-hour learning communities attended by the
three hub partners, the three supporting United Way programs, and the evaluator.
These meetings were designed to showcase new and promising approaches; to
share current approaches; to highlight success; and to serve as the primary vehicle
for problem-solving and addressing issues of implementation.
Each hub used the learning community meetings to share information and feedback
from their program sites. They reported on progress in executing proposed activities,
and the successes, challenges, and modifications that resulted. One learning
community was used to bring in experts on professional development, while others
were used to address topics such as literacy and learning strategies for special
populations, coaching for success, and visibility strategies for the literacy effort
moving forward. Facilitation of the meetings was shared by hub directors, with the
structure provided by the United Way programs.
Hub directors discussed their implementation plans for intentional literacy activities
during the summer, and continued to note focused work on concept development,
background knowledge, comprehension, and vocabulary improvement. Strategies
shared included the use of thematic curricula, ―time on text,‖ literacy stations, and
journal writing. The elements of dosage and tracking remained priority topics. The
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 35 of 61
hubs, continuing to build on prior collaborative experiences with school districts and
providers on literacy learning efforts, shared individual progress and suggestions
about enhancing these linkages and their plans to assess literacy outcomes for
participants.
The hubs‘ literacy and learning training schedules were continually updated and
available to all members of the learning community. Discussions at the initial learning
community meeting led to a desire for an effective communication tool and repository
for all resources. To facilitate both of these efforts, United Way of Massachusetts
Bay and Merrimack Valley created a special literacy and learning group page on its
website that included a wiki, resource library, group calendar, and Q & A. This web
page continues to serve as a real-time opportunity to exchange information.
The learning community was also used to frame the scope of work to be performed
by the evaluator and the elements of data that the final evaluation would contain. In-
depth discussion was used to reflect on EEC target data and to refine the draft
evaluation process. The final meeting served as a debriefing session and focused on
strengths and challenges in terms of youth, OST programs, and connecting with
public schools. Each hub reflected on their experiences and provided suggestions for
moving forward.
Section 6 – Cumulative Data for All Sites
The project funding sought to achieve four major objectives:
1) Prevent summer learning loss: Maintain or increase students‘ reading skills
both across and throughout academic years.
2) Provide focused literacy activities: Provide learning experiences and
opportunities to engage in learning outside of the school day and year.
3) Build OST capacity: Increase program capacity to provide students with
opportunities to engage in learning.
4) Linkage with schools and families: Develop strong partnerships between
out-of-school-time programs and their sending school districts and families.
Goal One: Reduce Summer Reading Loss
The DIBELS scores are sorted as ―at risk,‖ ―some risk,‖ and ―low risk‖ for reading
failure. The scores showed that 61% of the tested children at the beginning of the
summer were either ―at risk‖ or at ―some risk‖ of reading failure; this was not a
population that could afford a summer loss of literacy skills.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 36 of 61
Given that low-income children typically loose two to three months of reading skills
over the summer, 85% of all children tested better than would be expected, with 68%
showing actual gains in reading skills, and 4% remaining level. In addition, 13% had
minimal loss compared to the anticipated three-month loss.
The results varied across the hubs and individual sites due to variations in data
collection, the models of implementation, populations of children served, and the
success of the implementation within specific sites.
Goal Two: Provide Focused Literacy Activities
The summer literacy program provided literacy-intensive activities to 1,822 students
in seven high-need communities in Massachusetts.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 37 of 61
BOSTnet DELTAS WestMOST Totals for Project
Lawrence – 2 sites
Lowell – 3 sites
Lynn – 3 sites
Boston – 5 sites Holyoke – 1 site
Springfield – 3 sites
Worcester – 4 sites
Program sites = 21
954 participating
children
367 participating
children
501 participating
children
Children = 1,822
13 hours of literacy
activities per week
for 10 weeks in 8
sites
6 hours of literacy
activities per week
for 10 weeks in 5
sites
8 hours of literacy
activities per week
for 10 weeks in 8
sites
An average of 9.4
hours of literacy
activities for 10
weeks in 21 sites
1,000 hours of
literacy activities
300 hours of
literacy activities
640 hours of literacy
activities
1,940 hours of
literacy activities
800 hours of
coaching
320 hours of
coaching
960 hours of
coaching
2,080 hours of
coaching
86% of children
avoided typical
learning loss
82% of children
avoided typical
learning loss
75% of children
avoided typical
learning loss
85% of children
avoided typical
learning loss
The group leaders reported that over 1,940 hours of literacy activities were provided
during the ten weeks of the summer program. These activities included read-alouds
with children, independent reading, journal writing, use of literacy centers, putting on
plays, learning ―cool words,‖ and writing poems. These fun activities helped staff to
understand that blending the focus of learning with fun is natural and of great benefit
for the children they serve.
The children and youth who participated improved their oral language development
and vocabulary, increased their amount of reading and fluency of reading, and
developed improved attitudes about reading and literacy activities.
Goal Three: Build OST Capacity
100 staff were trained for 68 hours in the following topics: strategies for thematic
curriculum, integrating scientific inquiry into literacy, maximizing family involvement,
KidzLit®, Reading Street, design squad, watersheds, thinkFun, and more. The
language and literacy activities integrated into the daily routines included read-
alouds with children, Reader‘s Theater, choral reading, independent reading, buddy
reading, book clubs, and journal writing.
66 OST group leaders received 2,080 hours of coaching including support in
planning and modeling of literacy activities. Using experienced public school
teachers to mentor less formally education group leaders built on the training hours
received.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 38 of 61
The concept of ―cool words‖ helped the staff challenge children to improve their
vocabulary. The children were encouraged to write comments and suggestions,
career goals, favorite topics, science hypotheses, and their reactions to experiments.
This focus on bringing literacy and intentional curricula to out-of-school time
programs will continue to have payoffs during the school year and subsequent
summers.
A number of staff who had identified themselves as ―reluctant readers‖ gained the
confidence to create and participate in literacy activities with the children and youth.
Coaches who focused on capacity building of existing staff rather than merely
implementing the curriculum were able to maximize their impact.
Finally, the grant funds were used to purchase curriculum, supplemental books and
field trips, which supported the intention literacy activities; most materials remain in
the OST programs as literacy resources. In addition, the learning community of the
hub directors supported leadership and skill sharing among the hubs, leading to
project improvements as the hubs shared successes.
The grant directly impacted the following OST staff:
BOSTnet DELTAS WestMOST Totals for Project
8 site directors 5 site directors 8 site directors 21 site directors
8 coaches 3 coaches 6 coaches 17 coaches
20 group leaders 10 group leaders 36 group leaders 66 group leaders
Goal Four: Linkage with Schools and Families
Literacy coordinators/ principals advised on curriculum and referred potential
coaches. Hubs targeted OST sites in neighborhoods with at-risk schools. Coaching,
especially by enthusiastic teachers from the public schools, supported OST staff
members‘ confidence in delivering activities. Coaches also reported seeing the
educational value that out-of-school programs can contribute to children and youth at
risk for failure.
In addition, the hubs outreached to public school administration, sharing program
successes, and data. Communities are exploring additional ways to share
information while respecting confidentiality, including joint trainings and other ways to
build professional relationships between staff from public schools and OST
programs.
Every program reported in narrative form about the strategies used to reach out to
families to support the literacy initiatives: through newsletter articles, single-page
handouts, displaying children‘s art work and sending it home, linking with the
Storymobile in the neighborhoods, sharing books and magazines for children to take
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 39 of 61
home, helping families get library cards, and running workshops and celebrations
where children shared their literacy activities.
Section 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations
The data shows that it is possible to reverse summer learning loss by supporting out-
of-school-time programs with rich materials, training on literacy, and support from
experienced coaches. The results in each of the hubs show that the implementation
mattered. The majority of students were able to make literacy gains during the
initiative, with some sites demonstrating greater success than others.
Continue to refine this program by considering the following reflections:
1. Program readiness is clearly a factor in successful site implementation as
defined by increased literacy scores of children and youth. Readiness is
dependent on a number of factors. Many are measured by the quality rating
improvement system (QRIS) . Others, such as commitment of program
leadership, participation in other initiatives, and staff willingness to implement
change, may need to be assessed in other ways.
2. Sufficient start-up time needs to be built into summer programs to ensure that
all the elements are in place prior to the start of programs: materials purchased
and delivered, all coaches in place, and group leaders trained.
3. Continue initiatives to build true partnerships between public schools and out-
of-school programs; both educational systems have differing focuses and
strengths, and have much to learn from each other.
4. Make an explicit goal to track the activities and successes of engaging
families in their children‘s literacy development.
5. Continue to focus professional development for out-of-school-time staff on:
a. the value of literacy and intentional curriculum
b. techniques to enhance literacy skills and higher-order thinking skills in
connection with projects
c. informal ways to collect literacy data and plan specific activities to
support children‘s developing skills
6. Share literacy data with parents, with brief explanations of the data‘s meaning
and recommendations for supporting ongoing literacy development at home.
7. Share the results of the summer literacy evaluation with out-of-school time
programs, public school staff and administration, and all community literacy
initiatives, including readiness centers and potential funders.
While the long-term results of this project are difficult to quantify, they include
building out-of-school-time staff‘s desire and capacity to provide intentional
literacy activities, enhancing partnerships with public school systems,
development of family engagement to support literacy activities in the home, and
continued desire of the hubs to collaborate, share best practices, and support
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 40 of 61
OST programs to provide educational opportunities with a focus on enhancing
academic success. The project result of primary importance is the over 1,000
children and youth who returned to school this fall with enhanced literacy skills!
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 41 of 61
Section 8 – Bibliography
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the
summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167–180.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects
of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-
analytic report. Review of Educational Research, 66:3.
DELTAS website: http://www.bpsdeltas.org/about/index.htm
Duffett, A., Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Kung, S., & Ott, A. (2005). All work and no play?
Listening to what kids and parents really want from out-of-school time. New
York, NY: Public Agenda.
Gambrell, L. (2008). Closing the summer reading gap. Reading Today, 25(5), 18.
Kidzlit® website: http://www.devstu.org/afterschool-kidzlit
Kim, J. (n.d.).. How to make summer learning effective? National Center for Summer Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.summerlearning.org/resource/collection/CB94AEC5-9C97-496F-B230-1BECDFC2DF8B/Research_Brief_03_-_Kim.pdf
2010 MCAS Report (DISTRICT) for Grade 03 All Students website: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspx
Riedel, B. (2007). The relationship between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and
vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(6), 546–
567.
ReadBoston website:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/ReadBoston/JCSRB.asp
Reading Today, (2010). Stopping summer slide, Vol. 27(6), 1-6.
Shaywitz, (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based
program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Scott Foresman Reading Street website:
http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZ4Z4&PMDbSiteID=2781&PM
DbSolutionID=6724&PMDbProgramId=30321&level=4&prognav=po
Triumph Collaborative website: http://www.bpsdeltas.org/programs/index.htm
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 42 of 61
Attachment A
Child-Level Data
Child-Level Data: completed by group leaders and collected by program directors.
Hub directors returned clean data, ready to process, and contain no missing parts
submitted via an Excel Spread distributed to each of the 21 program sites.
Child- Level Data Collected
Unique number assigned to each child at the
program/agency level.
Grade level child will enter in fall of 2010
Race/Ethnicity: □ African American/Black
□ White/Caucasian
□ Asian/Pacific Island
□ Native American
□ Other
School attending in the Fall 2010
Hub and City
Pre- Literacy Score
•Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills
(DIBELS)
Date of Pre-test (08/20/10)
Post Literacy Score
Date of Post-test (08/20/10)
Number of days of attendance Drop-down menu to fill in the following:
June ___ of 7 days
July ___ of 21 days (assumed closed
July 4th)
August ___ of 22 days (or to post-test)
OR Total attendance ____ of 49 days.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 43 of 61
Attachment B
Program-Level Data
Program-Level Data will be completed by the program director on an Excel
spread sheet and return to ICI staff.
Hours of literacy training □ 2-4 hours
□ 4-8 hours
□ 8-10 hours
□ 10-20 hours
□ 20-30 hours
□ More than 30 hours
Check all the topics covered in your
literacy training.
List of training topics will be supplied by
the three hubs.
Who attended literacy trainings? □ coaches,
□ group leaders
□ directors
□ curriculum coordinators
□ Other - please list:_______________
Number of staff in your program?
Number of children served in your
program?
What is the average group size and
ratio in your program?
What percentage of children speak
languages in addition to English?
What percentage of children do you
serve from the following Race/Ethnicity
groups.
____% African American/Black
____% White/Caucasian
____% Asian/Pacific Island
____% Native American
____% Other
Hub and City □ BOSTnet:
o Lawrence,
o Lowell
o Lynn
□ DELTAS: Boston
□ WestMOST:
o Worcester
o Holyoke
o Springfield
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 44 of 61
Attachment C
Group Leader Survey (Online)
Email: You have been emailed the Group Leader Survey to assist in evaluating
the impact and effectiveness of the Out-of-School Time Literacy and Learning
initiative. The on-line survey is anonymous and will take about 10-15 minutes
to complete. The Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of
Massachusetts (ICI/UMB) is collecting the results of this survey and will share
cumulative results with the funder and program leaders. Click on the link
XXXXX to be directed to the survey. Thank you in advance for your willingness
to participate.
1.Use the following scale to rate the value of the summer literacy program.
1 2 3 4 5
Literacy skills
are not valued.
Literacy skills
are somewhat
valued.
Literacy skills
are valued as
one component
of out-of-school
program.
Literacy skills
are very valued
part of the
program.
Literacy skills
are a critical
component of
out-of-school
programs and
play a vital role
in the curriculum.
1.a. Use the scale above to rate your program‘s value of the summer literacy
program.
2.a. Use the scale above to rate children‘s value of the summer literacy program.
3.a. Use the scale above to rate your own value of the summer literacy program.
2. Use the following scale to rate the importance of the following components to your
ability to carry out a summer literacy program.
1 2 3 4 5
Not important Somewhat
important
Neutral Important Very important
2.a. Having literacy materials in available in the classroom.
2.b. Regular field trips.
2.c. Experience teaching literacy to children who know two languages.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 45 of 61
3. Use the scale below to rate the questions 3.a to 3.b.
1 2 3 4 5
To a Very Small
Extent
To a Small
Extent
Somewhat To a Great
Extent
To a Very Great
Extent
3.a. Enthusiasm working with coach to enhance summer literacy.
3.b. Effectiveness of coaching model to implementation.
4. What is your experience working with school-age children?
Drop down menu: under a year, year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, 10 or
more years.
5. How did your ability to implement literacy activities improve as a result of this
project?
6. Please check your highest level of education. high school or GED Some
college Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree
7. Please check the amount of time per week spent on literacy activities in your
classroom.
1-2 hours 2-4 hours 4-6 hours 6-8 hours 8-10 hours
8. Please check the amount of time spent each week with literacy coach.
1-2 hours per week 2-4 hours per week More than 5 hours per week do
not meet weekly
9. How long do you plan to continue working with school age children?
1-2 more years 2-5 more years It is my chosen career; in it for the long
run not long
10. Please check all the family literacy activities your agency has done this summer:
10.a. Distributed books linked with children‘s cultural background
10.b. Distributed bi-lingual books
10.c. Provided workshops for families
10.d. Provide literacy activities for families
10.e. Other: (Please be specific and provide details).
11. Use three words to describe the literacy project:
12. What worked best about the project (literacy training, activities with children,
and/or coaching)?
13. What was challenging?
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 46 of 61
Attachment D
Coach Survey
Email: You have been emailed the Coach Survey to assist in evaluating the
impact and effectiveness of the Out-of-School Time Literacy and Learning
initiative. The on-line survey is anonymous and will take about 10-15 minutes
to complete. The Institute for Community Inclusion at the University of
Massachusetts is collecting the results of the survey and will share cumulative
results with the funder and program leaders. Click on the link XXXXX to be
directed to the survey. Thank you in advance for your willingness to
participate.
1. Years experience coaching.
under one year 1- 2 years 2-5 years more than 5 years
2. What grade level do you work with during the regular school year?
Pre-k Kindergarten grades 1-3 grades 4-6 Middle school high
school other
(be specific)
3. What title best describes your position during the regular school year?
teacher special education teacher literacy coach reading specialist
other (be specific)
4. Number of years of teaching experience.
1-3 years, 3-7 years, 7-15 years, 15 years+
5. Number of hours of literacy training in the last five years:
1-5 hours, 6-15 hours, 15-45 hours, 45+ hours
6. Number of hours of coaching training received this year:
1-5 hours, 6-15 hours, 15-45 hours, 45+ hours
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 47 of 61
7. Use the following scale to rate your skills and knowledge on question 7.a.-7.d.
1 2 3 4 5
Limited
knowledge and
skills
Some
knowledge and
skill
Appropriate
amount of
knowledge and
skill.
A lot of
knowledge and
skill.
A wealth of
knowledge and
skill.
7.a. Coaching skills
7.b. Knowledge of literacy instruction
7.c. Knowledge of English Language Learners.
7.d. Prior experience working in out-of-school settings.
8. List three words to describe the role of coaching.
9. Would you do it again? Drop down YES or NO. Why or Why not?
10. What was most effective about the project?
11. What did children like best in the literacy activities?
12. What did you learn from the project?
13. How has this experience changed your relationship with out-of-school time
personnel?
14. What challenges did you face?
15. What recommendation(s) would you make if the project was to be funded again?
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 48 of 61
Attachment E
Program Director Debriefing
During the debriefing, program directors will be asked to rank staff‘s capacity in the
following language and literacy strategies: adult/child relationships; fostering positive
behaviors; planning for transitions; maintaining a positive program environment;
scheduling; overall agency support; family engagement; collaboration between and
among community agencies; training, and coaching.
The group will then discuss spend 40 minutes (or 5-minutes/each) on the following
questions:
1. What strategies were most effective to engage children in literacy activities?
2. What activities engaged the most families?
3. What strategies were group leaders most likely to implement?
4. Describe how you monitored implementation of literacy curriculum.
5. How has this experience changed your relationship with public schools?
6. What will carry on after the project?
7. In hindsight, describe additional supports that would have been helpful.
8. What recommendation(s) would you make if the project was to be funded
again?
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 49 of 61
Attachment F
Hub Directors Debriefing
Hub directors debriefing: September‘s Learning Community Meeting will include a
40 minute discussion focused on the following questions, with a 10-minute summary
and wrap-up.
a. What resources did the grant bring to the various sites?
b. What was the best outcome?
c. What training was provided for coaches?
d. What support was provided (supervision/meetings with coaches)?
e. Describe monitoring of implementation of grant activities.
f. How were the public schools engaged? Describe any common
elements across districts/schools.
g. How were families engaged in literacy activities?
h. What is sustainable in the various sites?
i. What recommendation would you make if the project was to be funded
again?
Literacy Activity Log
Program name __________________ Group name ___________________
Date:__________________
Number of children in your group this week __________
Circle the grades of children in your group
that participated in literacy activities: K 1 2 3 4 5 6
Please check all literacy activities that your group participated in this week:
Universal Literacy Activities Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri
Children read a book at their reading level to an adult.
Children read a book at their reading level to another child.
Children read a book at their reading level by themselves
Comprehension Strategies were included in reading activity
Readers’ Theater
Activity Centers with literacy activities
A thematic curriculum literacy extension
Targeted Strategies
Number of children that did Guided Reading
Other: Please describe
Additional comments:
Attachment G
Page 50 of 61
Last modified: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:39 PM EDT
Lynn schools, non-profits join forces to promote literacy
By David Liscio / The Daily Item
LYNN - The Lynn public schools and non-profit organizations across the city are joining forces
to promote literacy.
Fueled by a $250,000 grant from the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
(EEC), United Way of Massachusetts Bay & Merrimack Valley announced a groundbreaking
collaboration Monday. The partnership includes the United Way, the Department of Early
Education and Care, Lawrence Public Schools, BOSTnet and community-based organizations
focused on increasing literacy among children and youth.
Through the collaboration, organizations like the Greater Lynn YMCA School's Out Program,
the Gregg Neighborhood House Afterschool Program and Girls Incorporated of Greater Lynn are
funded to work with the Lynn schools. The concept is to share curriculum and create enriching
learning experiences for children through fun activities.
The effort has placed particular focus on reducing summer learning loss by integrating literacy
curriculum and coaches into summer programs.
"For children to succeed, literacy programs must begin before kindergarten and extend beyond
schools into early childhood centers, summer programs and other out-of-school-time programs,"
said Maryellen Coffey, executive director of BOSTnet.
Across academic research, third-grade reading levels are considered a direct indicator of whether
children will succeed in school and graduate on time. Across Massachusetts, however, 43 percent
of third-grade children are reading below grade-level, according to the United Way. In Lynn, that
number has jumped to 63 percent.
"There's a clear role that out-of-school-time programs can play in helping children develop the
skills they need to succeed in schools," said Michael K. Durkin, president of United Way of
Massachusetts Bay & Merrimack Valley, which last year opened a community service office on
Union Street.
"By better aligning these programs with schools and creating more opportunities for literacy
education, we can help close the achievement gap across the state."
Attachment H
Page 51 of 61
Collaboration Unites Lowell Schools and Nonprofits Around
Early Childhood Literacy
Posted by United Way on Aug 11, 2010 |
LOWELL — Fueled by a $250,000 grant from the Massachusetts Department of Early
Education and Care (EEC), United Way of Massachusetts Bay & Merrimack Valley announces a
ground-breaking collaboration between United Way, the Department of Early Education and
Care, Lowell Public Schools, BOSTnet, and community based organizations like Girls
Incorporated of Greater Lowell targeted at increasing literacy outcomes for children and youth
Across academic research, third-grade reading levels are considered a direct indicator of whether
children will succeed in school and graduate on time. Across Massachusetts, however, 43% of
third-grade children are reading below grade-level. In Lowell, that number jumps to 67%.
This year, the Anne E. Casey Foundation and Harvard University both released reports which
stressed that to counter low-literacy levels, children need to have “high quality learning
opportunities, beginning at birth and continuing in school and during out-of-school time,
including summers, in order to sustain learning gains and not lose ground.”
“For children to succeed, literacy programs must begin before kindergarten and extend beyond
schools into early childhood centers, summer programs and other out-of-school-time programs,”
said Maryellen Coffey, executive director of BOSTnet.
Through the collaboration, organizations like Girls Inc. are funded to work in collaboration with
Lowell schools, sharing curriculum and creating enriching learning experiences for children
through fun activities. The effort has placed particular focus on reducing summer learning loss
by integrating literacy activities and staff training into summer programs.
“There’s a clear role that out-of-school-time programs can play in helping children develop the
skills they need to succeed in schools,” said Michael K. Durkin, president of United Way of
Massachusetts Bay & Merrimack Valley. “By better aligning these programs with schools and
creating more opportunities for literacy education, we can help close the achievement gap across
the state.”
On Monday, August 9 at 2:30 p.m., Dr. Sherri Killins Commissioner of the Department of Early
Education and Care, and Deputy Superintendent of Lowell Jean Franco toured Girls Incorporated
of Greater Lowell, one of more than a dozen community-based literacy sites set up across the
state to target low reading levels.
Attachment I
Page 52 of 60
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 53 of 61
Attachment J
DELTAS Literacy Self-Assessment for Group Leaders
SELF ASSESSMENT Summer Learning Rocks Training
Name: ________________________________ Date: ________________
Please circle the level that best reflects how you feel today about your abilities as an
activity leader (10 = Very Uncomfortable; 100 = Very Comfortable)
Reading Aloud
Knowing why reading aloud with groups of children is important
Preparing to read a book to students to make sure it‘s age appropriate and to
practice reading the book fluently.
Asking open-ended questions to help students think about what they‘re hearing,
make connections to their lives and the world around them, increase their
comprehension
Introducing key vocabulary words before or during the story
Book Extensions
Knowing what book extension activities are and why they are important.
Leading book extension activities that bring books to life, encourage creativity, and
promote speaking, listening, reading, repeating language, pre-writing and pre-
reading activities.
Leading a range of book extensions including: discussions, writing, art, music/songs,
poetry, movement, drama, etc
Multiple Intelligences
Understanding what kind of learner you are and what activities you gravitate towards
Understanding that multiple intelligences include: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical,
Musical, Body-Kinesthetic, Spatial-Visual, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and
Naturalist.
Knowing why is it important to learn about multiple intelligences.
Planning literacy activities that relate to the different ways children learn and their
multiple intelligences.
Leading a range of literacy activities that appeal to different intelligences.
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 54 of 61
Environmental Literacy
Understanding what Environmental Literacy means and why it is important.
Knowing how to promote Enviro literacy in programs by:
· Reading aloud age appropriate books that promote these ideas. · Reading non fiction and fiction titles · Leading book extension activities that promote wonder and curiosity · Leading activities that connect children with the outside
Music and Movement
Understanding how singing supports children‘s literacy development.
Knowing how to select and read aloud books with rhythm and rhyme to provide
another way to promote literacy development.
Planning Literacy-enhanced Activities
Creating an activity plan that includes a lesson objective
Adding a literacy component to an existing lesson
Working with a team to design a series of lessons based on a theme
2010 Out-of-School-Time Literacy and Learning Promotion Grant, funded through the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care
Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston Page 55 of 61
Attachment K
DELTAS Field Trips and Special Guests Summer 2010 Programming Field Trips
Boston By Foot – Captain Kidd’s Treasure Hunt
Museum of Fine Arts – Artful Adventures
Franklin Park Zoo
Wolf Hollow
Puppet Showplace
Blue Hills Reservation
Boston Public Gardens - Swan Boats
Carson’s Beach and Park
Boston Nature Center
Museum of Science
Children’s Museum
Museum of Science – Omni Theatre
Belkin Lookout Farm
Cranes Beach and Cranes Estate Tour Cooking Up Culture – Boston University Culinary School No Tax on Tea! MIT Museum – Robotics Workshop ‘e’ Learning Room
Special Guests
Hip Hop Dance Performance/Lessons
Ballroom Dance Performance
Zoo New England
Big Joe the Story Teller
The Fred Woodard Quartet
Pizzazz the Beantown Clown
Jungle Jim Dennis the Magician
Page 56 of 61
Attachment L DELTAS - Summer Activity Planner
Staff name EW Group Lizards Date (s) of lesson 7/12/10 Theme Creative Writing Lesson Storytelling – Team Word Challenge
What They’ll Get (Skills)– Objectives
Writing a story using a random sampling of words.
Presenting their story to the group.
The Stuff I Need - Materials
In Other Words magnetic poetry set (synonyms) Dry erase boards Dry erase markers Timer Drawing supplies and paper
Making a Connection – The Intro
(What could you say?)
Move On Through – Procedure
1. Separate group into teams of two or three
2. Explain that teams are being challenged to write a story in 10 minutes using at least 20 out of 25 words that will be provided.
3. Inform the teams that they will be asked to present their stories to the group (they should identify a presenter). If they finish early, they have the option to illustrate their stories to add to the presentation.
4. Hand out boards, markers, and 25 magnetic words per group. Have them place their words white side (basic) up.
5. Set the timer and begin.
Notes:
Add a challenge: After 5 minutes, ask the teams to flip over 3 of their words and use the synonym in their story.
Alternate activity #1 Have students use same materials for poetry writing; present work in a mini “Slam
Showcase”
Alternate activity #2 Instead of using magnetic words, have each group brainstorm a list of: Nouns
(things), Verbs (action words), and Adjectives (descriptive words i.e. smooth) one word to a post-it note, trade words with another group, and proceed as above.
Building Staff Capacity through Universal Strategies and Thematic Curriculum
Universal Strategies Skill Application
Read Aloud Fluency
Comprehension
Vocabulary
Reading aloud-staff and
specialist together
…conversation about reading
Journaling
Reading with Fluency Shared
Choral
Readers’ theater
journaling
Independent reading
(book series emphasized)
Stamina
Fluency
Vocabulary
Idea of concept
Building background
knowledge
Buddy reading
Book clubs
Independent reading with
conversations about book
journaling
Literacy stations
(Relaxations stations)
word work:
phonemic
phonics
vocabulary development
grammar
automaticity/“learning
words in a snap”
games and center based
literacy/relaxation stations
barrier games
journaling
Thematic Curriculum
(Note: this is not a separate
category, it is embedded
and in graphic
representation, it should
surround this chart
relation stations
journals
read aloud
reading with
field trips
Attachment M
Page 57 of 61
Clarifying HSLI vision on literacy and learning strategies
School-like
Teacher directed
Experiential,
research-based
strategies for good
summer learning
Pulling children out of
curriculum groups
Guided reading
Round-robin reading
(not a research-based
strategy. See Opitz:
Goodbye Round Robin
Reading)
ACTIVE
Choices based on
curricula and child’s
interests
Activity stations that
provide choice
Lower group sizes
Page 58 of 61
Attachment N
Page 59 of 61
WestMOST Summer 2010 Planning Sheet
Program Site _________________________________________________________
TASK TEAM Details
Planning and preparation
What curriculum will specialists be working with?
What tasks do we need to work on?
What training will program staff have?
When will we meet?
DIBELS
What space will work for the testing?
Date to compile participant list/grade level for HSLI office and specialist
When will you complete the pre-test? (AFTER program is open 2-3 days)
What program staff person is responsible for getting consent forms completed?
When will you conduct the post-test?
Will you need help with testing because your program is 50+ kids?
Summer logistics
When does summer program open and close?
When will specialist start and stop?
What is weekly schedule?
What days/hours will specialist/s work?
Where will specialist do their work?
Are specialists or champions taking any vacation?
Family engagement
Family night on literacy
Family night for culminating performances
Other issues?
Attachment O
WestMOST Ideas for Activity Centers
60
Ideas for HSLI Activity Centers
Tips: An activity station is an area within the room where children and youth work alone or with each other to explore and expand their literacy.
Work to be sure that activities are engaging, makes learning relevant and personal, provides choices
Have delineated space for the various centers
Provide lots of choices
Include choices for different ages and stages and needs (e.g. ELL, different learning styles)
Rotate materials to keep the stations new and fresh
Teach or model the activity before putting it into the activity station for independent use
Stations are used daily and provide choice and differentiated instruction
Ages 5-7 Ages 8-11 Ages 12-14 Reading: space dividers, soft lamps,
pillows, carpet squares, lawn shares
for
comfortable seating
www.scholastic.com for low-
level, high interest books
www.ala.com American
Library Assn has books on tape
and other lists of books
Books on tape, especially good for
ELL.if they also have the text.
Chart simple camp songs/chants
Word Wall.
Big Books on easel to read with
friends
Local newspapers (see if they will
provide your program with a free
subscription)
Reader’s Theater and comic books in
baskets
Reading buddies and near-peer
reading buddies.
Magazines for all ages like Weekly
Reader’s Newsweek for kids, New
Moon for girls), Sports Illustrated
Junior, etc.
Writing: Round desks for writing and
sharing, cubbies for those that need
quiet space, dictionaries, pencils,
pens, markers, paper, journals,
computers, stencils, erasable
slates/whiteboards
Cartoon with words erased to create
your own cartoon to help with
sequencing
Suggestion box or message boxes for
brief messages that provide a chance
for social writing
Have old greeting card fronts and
have children write a card to family or
friend
Create a JOKE book for the group
Use plastic letters at sand table
Journal: with daily writing prompts,
connected to the curriculum.
Newsletter or scrapbook by children
about summer program and add
photos!
Autobiographical poems or poems
about today’s activity
Mad Libs
Describe and draw (great for ELL)
Write out camp songs and chants
Zines and student magazines
Poetry Slam
Create your own survey (teens love to
find out what people think. Have
teens do analysis as well, to add math
skills)
Create an advertisement for
something you’d like to sell
Create song lyrics
Graffiti Walls to collect ideas
Attachment P – WestMOST Ideas for Activity Centers
61
Listening/speaking What is your favorite (book, movie,
song and put on chart paper on wall)
Getting to know you games
Icebreakers and team building games
Create a quiz show
Create a news station
Interview a friend, staff, a guest, then
transcribe the interview
Debate teams
Have hot current event item from
newspaper or magazine with guided
discussion questions
Games Charades
Web sites for riddles
A to Z
Scrabble Jr.
Pictionary Junior
Brain Quest comes in age levels
Websites for Brain teasers and word
problems
Boggle
Word Yahtzee
Scattergories
Pictionary
Dictionary: only need paper, pencil
and a dictionary
Bananagrams
Upwords
20 questions
Quotes of the day. www.cyber-
nation.com, www.coolquiz.com
Curriculum extensions Example: Watershed
Mural/map of field trips
Create a big book on visit to
Connecticut River
Create an eco system and write a log
to track what happens with the eco
system
Do internet research about what
brought settlers to the Connecticut
River
Create a guide book for 20 ways you
can be more GREEN at home, at
school, at our program